SPEEDER: In the 2nd R&E Rules, the scale difference between Character and Speeder is a measly 2D, which means Heavy Repulsortanks (with a body of 4D+2 or 5D) are within the damage threat range for light and repeating blasters. Bumping the scale difference to 4D gives vehicles a little more durability.

STARFIGHTER / WALKER: Really, when you compare the sizes of Starfighter and Walker-Scale vehicles, there really isn't much of difference. If anything, Walkers are bigger. The differences are in design, as dictated by mission. Starfighters sacrifice armor in trade for speed and maneuverability, and vice versa for Walkers. In this system, Starfighters and Walkers inflict the same scale of damage, but Starfighters receive a +2D bonus to avoid incoming fire, while walkers receive a +2D bonus to resist damage (The +2D may be too much. I am open to suggestions). This has the added effect of increasing the Walker's threat level, making them more dangerous to Starfighters as opposed to merely serving as big, slow moving targets.

STARSHIP: The rules do not reflect the ability of Starfighters to threaten Capital Ships. With a Scale bonus of 6D ( applied to the Capital Ship's Hull Dice AND Shields), even massed torpedo barrages stand little chance of inflicting damage. As such, in this scale system, all Capital Ships rated as Heavy Cruiser or lighter are downgraded to Starship Scale. This is more in line with the real world origin of the term capital ship (which was always applied to heavy vessels like battleships and aircraft carriers). This shift makes most of the lighter vessels (corvettes, frigates, and the like) more vulnerable to massed starfighter attacks (as is presented in much of the fiction, as well as some of the sidebar stories found in various source materials), and also corrects certain inequities found in existing stats. The most glaring example is the Strike Cruiser, with a Hull rating only 1D less than that of an Imperial Star Destroyer (and Shields only one pip less) at a fraction of the size.

Personally, while Walkers are fairly durable, they are less so in my opinion than a star ship. It's one thing to equip them with comparable weapons, another thing to say they can hang in a fight with a starfighter.

Seperating Starfighters from Space Transports (what it looks like with the starfighter / walker @ 8D and starship @ 12, then capital @ 16, even with your explanation) would severely take away the general effectiveness of a starfighter.

I also always felt the "Walker" scale was complately unnecessary so I got rid of it. Instead, I placed "Speeder" scale in the middle, die step wise, between "Character" and "Starfighter", added an "Escort" scale between "Starfighter" and "Capital", for corvettes, frigates, small cruisers and even medium freighters, and a "Dreadnought" scale between "Capital" and "Death Star", for ultra huge things like the Super ISD.

I think the RAW reason behind the "Walker" and "Starfighter" scales being separate has mainly to do with differences in construction. Starfighters, like other spaceships, have those, like, particle shields (separate from combat shields) protecting them from space debries and radiation, and that ups their damage resistance in reletion to "smaller" scale vehicles. Actually powering down those particle shields was supposed to lower the hull die code of a spaceship by 2D (whatever happened if the ship already had a 2D or less hull code was never explained...). It makes sense for spaceships to have those kind of shields, but I never felt they should have such a big effect on combat damage resistance and so always ignored them for scaling purposes, happily assigning AT-AT size walkers to the "Starfighter" scale.

The die step I used between the scales is 3D. I agree, The original 2D is too little, but on the other hand the 4D you propose seems a little much to me. For the starfighter vs. capital situation, you're adding lighter "not-quite-capital" ships for the starfighters to hurt, but actually significantly increasing the starfighter invulnarability of the "true" capital ships, like the ISD's. Using a 3D scale step, you could still achive the first just as well while keeping the original 6D starfighter/true-capital difference, potentially allowing massed starfighter torpedo barrages to hurt the big ships - unless the aforementioned "problem" is actually exactly what you're aiming at, in which case it's not my cup of tea, but more power to you Just my 2 cents worth.

But on the whole, good stuff.

On a related thought:
The insistance that every speeder be "Speeder" scale, every walker "Walker" scale, every starfighter "Starfighter" scale, etc. never made any sense to me. I assign scales as appropriate to the size, maneuverability and toughness of the vehicle as I see them, and not based on some arbitrary cathegory derived from their method of propulsion. Light walkers like AT-ST's are "Speeder" scale, repulsor tanks and big walkers like AT-AT's are "Starfighter", and medium freighters, like the Mobquet Custom, are "Escort".

Praxian wrote:

Personally, while Walkers are fairly durable, they are less so in my opinion than a star ship. It's one thing to equip them with comparable weapons, another thing to say they can hang in a fight with a starfighter.

I'd have to disagree here. Look at an X-Wing and an AT-AT. Sure, the fighter could have, on an absolute scale, a more durable construction. But look at the size difference. The walker has much more structure bulk and mass that you have to chew through in order to damage it. And I fully expect the walker to carry more armor. I don't care how much more damage resistant on an absolute scale an X-Wing is, being a military machine with emergency redundant systems and damage control, it's still not going to have a structural integrity equal, or even tougher, than something with many times it's size and mass (and the same goes for starfighters and light freighters - the X-Wing and YT-1300 having the same hull code? No way, pal!). But that's just me._________________Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer

I like this new system... Where would you place air speeders? Keep them as speeder or bump them to walker?

Also, i cannot remember seeing a blast raius for walker's weaponry (other than the grenade launcher on At-Sts/_________________It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.

I like this new system... Where would you place air speeders? Keep them as speeder or bump them to walker?

Also, i cannot remember seeing a blast raius for walker's weaponry (other than the grenade launcher on At-Sts/

I would keep airspeeders as speeders, but bump cloud cars to Starfighter Scale.

As far as the blast radius, I don't recall any official rules to that effect. However, since energy beam weaponry is designed for a point effect while a grenade is designed for area effect, any blast radius would be incidental, as a result of spalling or blast fragmentation and coronal effects from the original target.

Personally, while Walkers are fairly durable, they are less so in my opinion than a star ship. It's one thing to equip them with comparable weapons, another thing to say they can hang in a fight with a starfighter.

Separating Starfighters from Space Transports (what it looks like with the starfighter / walker @ 8D and starship @ 12, then capital @ 16, even with your explanation) would severely take away the general effectiveness of a starfighter.

Well, my main point with this scale system is to address certain inequities in the original system. Consider what the power systems on Starfighters have to operate when compared to starfighters. Starfighter-scale vessels have hyperdrives, inertial compensators, long range sensors, sublight engines, and energy shields, all of which are absent on a Walker. If you could fit the same size power plant into a Walker, with greatly reduced energy demand and life support requirements, you can redirect that energy to a basic engine system and massive amounts of armor. This is the basis for my supposition of Walkers being less maneuverable but more heavily armored.

I still intended for most Space Transports to be Starfighter Scale. Starship Scale would include things like the Corellian Corvette, the Lancer and Nebulon-B Frigates, Strike Cruiser, Dreadnaught, Interdictor, etc. Capital Ship Scale would be reserved for Victory Star Destroyers, Mon Cal Star Cruisers, Imperial Star Destroyers, etc. The dividing line between Starfighter Scale and Starship Scale with regards to Space Transports would be open to discussion. Perhaps a third addition to the Starfighter / Walker Scale, with Space Transports having a Scale of 8D, but with no +2D bonus either way?

EDIT: This system would reduce the effectiveness of Star Fighters against Capital Ships, as the current rules have a bonus of +6D for Starfighters vs. Capital Ships. These rules increase that bonus to +8D vs. Capital Ships, but only +4D vs. Starship Scale. That change leaves Capital Ships even more invulnerable to all but the largest mass starfighter attacks (or mass torpedo barrages in the hundreds, ala the attack on the Lusankya at the end of The Bacta War novel).

To me, this makes sense. Massive ships like Mon Cal Star Cruisers and Imperial Star Destroyers should be able to shrug off damage from starfighters, so long as their shields are intact. Starfighters truly come into their own against Capital Ships when operating as part of a combined arms assault, as described in the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, with the cruisers (translation: Capital Ships) at the core of the line, protected by close support and picket ships, as well as escorting starfighter wings and attack fighter wings. The cruisers engage the enemy's big ships, the close support ships engage the enemy's escorts, and the escorting starfighters protect the fleet from attack by enemy starfighters. Meanwhile, the starfighter attack wings penetrate the enemy formation and attempt to exploit targets of opportunity, like Capital Ships that have lost their shields from main battery pummelings from other Capital Ships.

Shields, naturally, are still a huge issue, as the scale modifier is applied to both Hull Dice and Shield Dice. As an example, even with this system, an attacking Starfighter squadron needs to beat a 13D+2 to damage a Nebulon-B Frigate, and 26D to damage an Imperial Star Destroyer. My rules simply make this slightly less impossible.

Last edited by CRMcNeill on Sat May 22, 2010 2:15 pm; edited 2 times in total

I like this new system... Where would you place air speeders? Keep them as speeder or bump them to walker?

I would keep airspeeders as speeders, but bump cloud cars to Starfighter Scale.

The problem I see is that it would prevent Air Speeders from having any chance of taking out an AT-AT ith thier lasers, and it did happen in ESB.
5D lasers vs 16D armor is a worse deal that starfighters used to get against capital ships.

So either AT-At's aren't quite that tough,or the rebel T-47's were fitted with heavier weaponry.

This system would actually increase the effectiveness of Star Fighters against Capital Ships, as the current rules have a bonus of +12D for Starfighters vs. Capital Ships. These rules reduce that bonus to +8D vs. Capital Ships, and only +4D vs. Starship Scale.

Er... No, no it wouldn't? Just the opposite in fact. Where did the +12D come from? The difference between "Starfighter" scale and "Capital" scale is 6D by RAW. It would be 12D if you used the ruling that the scale difference modifier is applied to both hull and shields. From this:

crmcneill wrote:

Shields, naturally, are still a huge issue, as the scale modifier is applied to both Hull Dice and Shield Dice. As an example, even with this system, an attacking Starfighter squadron needs to beat a 13D+2 to damage a Nebulon-B Frigate, and 26D to damage an Imperial Star Destroyer. My rules simply make this slightly less impossible.

it's clear that you do (I don't myself, but to each his own). But in your rules, the scale difference between "Starfighter" scale and "Capital" scale is 8D. That would mean that, effectively, a shielded ISD and such would get a 16D bonus to resist damage. You're actually making it more impossible for a starfighter squadron to damage them, not less. That's what I pointed out earlier (and with your die step of 4D it's still true wheather you apply the modifier to hull and shields separately, or only once)._________________Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer

I also always felt the "Walker" scale was complately unnecessary so I got rid of it. Instead, I placed "Speeder" scale in the middle, die step wise, between "Character" and "Starfighter", added an "Escort" scale between "Starfighter" and "Capital", for corvettes, frigates, small cruisers and even medium freighters, and a "Dreadnought" scale between "Capital" and "Death Star", for ultra huge things like the Super ISD.

Escort was actually my original title for Starship scale. For some reason, "Starship" just felt more...right. As far as the Dreadnought-Scale, I hadn't considered it, but I can see your point.

The problem I foresee is how to re-stat the weapons systems of Capital Ship and Dreadnought Scale. If you look at the weapon systems of WWII era battleships, they had their main guns (heavy 15-18" cannon with 20+ mile range), lighter dual purpose guns (lighter 5" dual purpose cannon that also served as the main armament on destroyers and frigates), and a mass of light cannon for use against airplanes. How do we reconfigure the weapon systems of both Capital Ships and Dreadnoughts to fit this model?

Leon The Lion wrote:

I think the RAW reason behind the "Walker" and "Starfighter" scales being separate has mainly to do with differences in construction. Starfighters, like other spaceships, have those, like, particle shields (separate from combat shields) protecting them from space debries and radiation, and that ups their damage resistance in reletion to "smaller" scale vehicles. Actually powering down those particle shields was supposed to lower the hull die code of a spaceship by 2D (whatever happened if the ship already had a 2D or less hull code was never explained...). It makes sense for spaceships to have those kind of shields, but I never felt they should have such a big effect on combat damage resistance and so always ignored them for scaling purposes, happily assigning AT-AT size walkers to the "Starfighter" scale.

Well, that's not all there is to it, though. If Starfighters and Walkers are the same size, that means you could equip a walker with, say, the Quadex Power Core that equips the Millenium Falcon. Now, look at all the systems that the Falcon requires that power for; Hyperdrive, Sublight Drive, Inertial Compensation and artifical gravity, navigation and combat shields, long range sensors, and life support rated for extended deep-space operations. A Walker has none of that. All it has is a basic locomotion system (legs, wheels, repulsorlift, etc.), short ranged sensors, and a life support system compatible with the planet surface to which it is deployed. That leaves a massive amount of power available for other uses. In this case, the most practical use is to beef up the drive system so that it can motivate massive amounts of armor.

As for navigation shields, IMO, if a starship with a Hull of 2D loses its particle shields, then it no longer gets a roll to resist damage (of any type, including flying mishaps). Simply apply the damage value rolled against the starship combat damage chart and apply the result (most likely, BOOM!).

Leon The Lion wrote:

The die step I used between the scales is 3D. I agree, The original 2D is too little, but on the other hand the 4D you propose seems a little much to me. For the starfighter vs. capital situation, you're adding lighter "not-quite-capital" ships for the starfighters to hurt, but actually significantly increasing the starfighter invulnarability of the "true" capital ships, like the ISD's. Using a 3D scale step, you could still achive the first just as well while keeping the original 6D starfighter/true-capital difference, potentially allowing massed starfighter torpedo barrages to hurt the big ships - unless the aforementioned "problem" is actually exactly what you're aiming at, in which case it's not my cup of tea, but more power to you Just my 2 cents worth.

3D. 4D. Whatever your preference.

Leon The Lion wrote:

On a related thought:
The insistance that every speeder be "Speeder" scale, every walker "Walker" scale, every starfighter "Starfighter" scale, etc. never made any sense to me. I assign scales as appropriate to the size, maneuverability and toughness of the vehicle as I see them, and not based on some arbitrary cathegory derived from their method of propulsion. Light walkers like AT-ST's are "Speeder" scale, repulsor tanks and big walkers like AT-AT's are "Starfighter", and medium freighters, like the Mobquet Custom, are "Escort".

I agree. The most ridiculous example is the Leviathan Submersible Starfighter Carrier. At 200m, it is in the same size range as a WWII-era Independence-Class Light Carrier. It's equipped to carry a full starfighter squadron (1 scale step above Walker), and yet, for some unfathomable reason, it was rated as Walker Scale

Leon The Lion wrote:

I'd have to disagree here. Look at an X-Wing and an AT-AT. Sure, the fighter could have, on an absolute scale, a more durable construction. But look at the size difference. The walker has much more structure bulk and mass that you have to chew through in order to damage it. And I fully expect the walker to carry more armor. I don't care how much more damage resistant on an absolute scale an X-Wing is, being a military machine with emergency redundant systems and damage control, it's still not going to have a structural integrity equal, or even tougher, than something with many times it's size and mass (and the same goes for starfighters and light freighters - the X-Wing and YT-1300 having the same hull code? No way, pal!). But that's just me.

I would disagree with you on the X-Wing vs. YT-1300. The YT-1300 may be larger, but it's a commercial vessel, not a military one. A large portion of its interior is hollow for cargo storage space. An X-Wing, on the other hand, is specifically designed for combat and durability. Hull rating doesn't just reflect structural integrity, it also reflects things like redundant backup systems, automated repair functions (as controlled by the Astromech) and blast/shock hardened internal components that are specifically designed to function in sustained combat operations.

Er... No, no it wouldn't? Just the opposite in fact. Where did the +12D come from? The difference between "Starfighter" scale and "Capital" scale is 6D by RAW. It would be 12D if you used the ruling that the scale difference modifier is applied to both hull and shields.

My bad. It's early where I am, and I did my math wrong. I'm going to go back and reword my argument to reflect reality, as opposed to a sleep enduced haze.

I think the RAW reason behind the "Walker" and "Starfighter" scales being separate has mainly to do with differences in construction. Starfighters, like other spaceships, have those, like, particle shields (separate from combat shields) protecting them from space debries and radiation, and that ups their damage resistance in reletion to "smaller" scale vehicles. Actually powering down those particle shields was supposed to lower the hull die code of a spaceship by 2D (whatever happened if the ship already had a 2D or less hull code was never explained...). It makes sense for spaceships to have those kind of shields, but I never felt they should have such a big effect on combat damage resistance and so always ignored them for scaling purposes, happily assigning AT-AT size walkers to the "Starfighter" scale.

Sort of on this point, I've always wondered if walkers, AT-ATs at least, in fact do have shielding. If you watch very closely the Hoth attack in TESB you can see some of the laser blasts not actually hitting the AT-AT but exploding very close to it. This would explain why the walkers seemed invulnerable to blaster fire when they were walking, however when the rebels fire at the one on the ground it explodes easily. I assume its shields were down at that point. Not that I'm changing any rules due to this observation, but I wonder if the game designers noticed this when they created the first stats for the AT-AT.

I like this new system... Where would you place air speeders? Keep them as speeder or bump them to walker?

I would keep airspeeders as speeders, but bump cloud cars to Starfighter Scale.

The problem I see is that it would prevent Air Speeders from having any chance of taking out an AT-AT ith thier lasers, and it did happen in ESB.
5D lasers vs 16D armor is a worse deal that starfighters used to get against capital ships.

So either AT-At's aren't quite that tough,or the rebel T-47's were fitted with heavier weaponry.

Well, within the rules, the AT-AT that was taken out with lasers had already crashed (i.e. suffered damage), resulting in a reduced Hull rating, making it more vulnerable to attacks (Damage results in a Dice penalty to all rolls, including resisting damage)

I like this new system... Where would you place air speeders? Keep them as speeder or bump them to walker?

I would keep airspeeders as speeders, but bump cloud cars to Starfighter Scale.

The problem I see is that it would prevent Air Speeders from having any chance of taking out an AT-AT ith thier lasers, and it did happen in ESB.
5D lasers vs 16D armor is a worse deal that starfighters used to get against capital ships.

So either AT-At's aren't quite that tough,or the rebel T-47's were fitted with heavier weaponry.

Well, within the rules, the AT-AT that was taken out with lasers had already crashed (i.e. suffered damage), resulting in a reduced Hull rating, making it more vulnerable to attacks (Damage results in a Dice penalty to all rolls, including resisting damage)

Not within the rules, unless you are altering that, too. By the rules, damage does not result in a dice penalty. vehicles and item use their full Hull STR to resist damage the same way characters do.

Now I'll admit that the Walker was already down, and the speeder did shoot at it's top armor, and such armor is usually thrinner than frontal or side armor (since it is designed to attack foes on the ground), but even so, I think you are making walkers too tough.

The T-47's blasters did manage to penetrate the AT-AT's plating, and
Ewoks were able to crush an AT-ST, with logs.

I can agree with befing the walkers up some, and maybe even putting walkers and fighters on the same scale, but 10D is just too much. And it makes the rebels look even stupider than they already do. If the AT-ATs are speeder proof, the rebels should have just sent their Starfighters out instead of the T-47s.

Well, my preference is 3D, because of all the reasons I mentioned. To summarize again, making it 4D would make "Capital" scale ships even more resistant to satrfighters than they are by RAW, which you seemed to dislike. So now I'm not sure what is it you actually intend with your rulings.

crmcneill wrote:

I would disagree with you on the X-Wing vs. YT-1300. The YT-1300 may be larger, but it's a commercial vessel, not a military one. A large portion of its interior is hollow for cargo storage space. An X-Wing, on the other hand, is specifically designed for combat and durability. Hull rating doesn't just reflect structural integrity, it also reflects things like redundant backup systems, automated repair functions (as controlled by the Astromech) and blast/shock hardened internal components that are specifically designed to function in sustained combat operations.

Exactly. And how much do you hurt the freighter when you hit this empty space? And that's why I think a freighter should always be more durable than a starfighter. Many shots at the freighter would punch through the hull to damage... Thin air! An unlucky (or lucky, from the point of view of the freighter) shot could go all the way through the ship and out the other side without hitting anything important on the way! With a starfighter, with how small it is and how packed it has to be with systems because of that, that's impossible. Any penetrating hit is practically guaranteed to take out something you need. It needs all those backup systems mentioned just to survive a single hit without significant damage. But that's how I roll.

atgxtg wrote:

I can agree with befing the walkers up some, and maybe even putting walkers and fighters on the same scale, but 10D is just too much.

I'm baffled again. Where had the 10D difference come from? Nobody proposed any such thing anywhere in the thread that I can see. The difference between "Speeder" and "Walker" scale for resisting damage would be 6D and 4D, in crmcneill's and Praxian's propositions respectively._________________Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer

Not within the rules, unless you are altering that, too. By the rules, damage does not result in a dice penalty. vehicles and item use their full Hull STR to resist damage the same way characters do.

Now I'll admit that the Walker was already down, and the speeder did shoot at it's top armor, and such armor is usually thrinner than frontal or side armor (since it is designed to attack foes on the ground), but even so, I think you are making walkers too tough.

The T-47's blasters did manage to penetrate the AT-AT's plating, and
Ewoks were able to crush an AT-ST, with logs.

I can agree with befing the walkers up some, and maybe even putting walkers and fighters on the same scale, but 10D is just too much. And it makes the rebels look even stupider than they already do. If the AT-ATs are speeder proof, the rebels should have just sent their Starfighters out instead of the T-47s.

Good point. Maybe that should be a changed rule. After all, damage to one system usually results in reduced overall effectiveness of the operating whole. Realistically, when something the size of a Walker does a faceplant (ala the AT-AT in ESB), it's not going to survive completely intact. Internal systems will be stressed and shocked in ways they weren't designed for, armor and structural integrity will be affected the same way, and the crew will be dazed and confused and unable to perform their operational duties as they normally would. A reduced Hull Strength value for a damaged vehicle is not unrealistic.

As for why the Alliance didn't just use their X-Wings against the AT-AT's in the first place, I have never been able to find a reasonable explanation for that. Their only real contributions to the battle were the trip attack and distracting the AT-AT's (marginally) from targeting the groud troops.